> For what it's worth, I'm strongly opposed to the notion that a mail > recipient might put some part of a mail message into a web cache. A > cache is a cache. A mail recipient interpreting a multipart message > might treat included parts with a disposition URI as surrogates for > the named parts FOR THE CONTEXT OF THAT MESSAGE, but in lieu of a > stronger security context, interaction with the web browser's cache is > a bad idea. When I proposed that a mail message include cached copies of documents, I was assuming that the mail message would include the same data structures that a web browser would obtain from a catalog server, including any authenticity and integrity provided by the catalog info server as well as an expiration date. I agree that the security features are essential before such a mechanism is deployed, but it doesn't make any difference whether the data is emailed or retrieved from a catalog info server. KeithReceived on Wednesday, 22 November 1995 23:21:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:32 UTC